The plot device used to move the film from one scene to another is having men stare off-screen at an incoming terror. This works once only but is repeated multiple times. The sound & set design can't compensate for a narrative so insubstantial that it's forced, as horrors rely on jump-scares, to rely on hackneyed repetitions of a theme with no narrative content whatsoever. The film thus betrays its emptiness often.
“We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”
The movie I think of when I think of Dunkirk is Battleship Potemkin. Like Eisenstein’s warfare classic, Dunkirk knows how to stage tension on a practically sociological scope – and, in its most tense sequences, approaches similar cinematic skill. But it also shares Potemkin's chief shortcoming: underbaked characters. As a result it doesn't earn the Zimmer-injected emotional payoff its conclusion tries to shill.
Nolan has again shows his mastery in narrating such a magnitude of narration with such subtlety and delight, that you won`t really feel that you are temporally transitioning between earth and sea and sky. He even mastered the way he presented that tragedy inside without sliding it into a tear-jerker. Plus, you have accept that he did it all as an ultimate IMAX experience.
Nolan proves once again he is able to direct breathtaking and stunning stories, supported once again with another fantastic collaboration with Hans Zimmer for his ticking score. However, the scale of the film feels far more confined than his previous works, and some of the character perspectives diluted the tension of the final scenes. Wonderful acting all round though, especially Jack Lowden.
Un bel "non proprio war movie", che rende in maniera intelligente le varie percezione della guerra, a seconda dell'arma di appartenenza. Ottimo il lavoro sul tempo, ben riuscito il modo di far emergere l'evacuazione verso l'Inghilterra, forse troppo calcata la parte sulle attese dei soldati una volta rientrati in patria. Innovativo.
At first, when the film was announced, I was puzzled by Nolan's choice of theme. Historical war films have never been my cup of tea due to the extreme use of personal drama that makes it difficult for the viewer to engage with the weider picture, the complexity of warfare. And here starts the huge BUT that makes this film stand out.
[More like 3.5] Very well made and involving, but not that interesting and events are only related to each other by how the story unfolds. There's no curiosity left for the viewer, and no opinion. You can just watch the movie and 'agree' with what it says. Yet I can't agree with how it says it.
La regia preziosa ed una fotografia magistrale tentano invano di riparare le falle create dalla pesante assenza di Jonathan Nolan, che causa più danni degli Heinkel tedeschi. Un Dunkirk mal contestualizzato a livello storico e rappresentato in modo anonimo ed un po' finto, ospita una marea di comparse senza protagonista, mentre tre episodi bellici tentano di incastrarsi fra loro in una narrativa piatta e farraginosa.